-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Just because someone else prosecutes a war in a different manner than you does not make those who fight it any less soldiers in a cause.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: The US has never bombed a civilian target?
I said never intentionally, especially not with the intent to inflict civilian causualties.
-------------------- It takes 42 muscles in your face to frown. It only takes 4 muscles to extend your arm and smack someone upside the head.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:I said never intentionally, especially not with the intent to inflict civilian causualties.
That's just not at all correct.
The American way of hurting civilian populations, heck, goes back to the Civil War when Philip Sheridan laid waste to the Shenandoah Valley and Sherman burned Georgia and South Carolina.
Sheridan continued his ways by killing the buffalo so the Indians couldn't use it as a soruce of food and all the other things it was used for.
To the mass bombing of Germany to General Curtis LeMay fire-bombing the crud out of Tokyo, the United States has recoginzed that war means breaking the spirit of the enemy and that often means targeting the civilian population who, in the end sustain any enemy war effort, and terrorizing them into eventual capitulation.
[ January 24, 2002, 23:56: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:I said never intentionally, especially not with the intent to inflict civilian causualties.
Uh, that little Vietnam tiff thing? Among piles of other examples? (edit: which I see Jay has kindly supplied above)
Keep in mind the only way we're likely to ever know that the US has intentionally bombed a civilian target, especially in this era of leashed media, is if the US military tells us so.
Ultimately, deciding who's a "soldier" and who's a "common murderer" is supposed to be an objective process. It's not one when you presuppose that all your guys are good little soldiers and everyone else you arrest are murderous thugs.
[ January 24, 2002, 21:43: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And before you ask, Hiroshima was the headquarters for the Japanese First Army.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It was also a city. With a civilian population in the hundreds of thousands.
Why not attack a naval yard? Face it, Omega. Civilians have been deliberately targeted by the United States in many instances. I guess, by Bush's definition, we're terrorists. Let's bomb ourselves now.
posted
Using the Hiroshima example, how many military personnel would there have had to be in the Twin Towers on September 11th before it could be considered on the whole a military target? 1? 10? 100? 1000?
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It was also a city. With a civilian population in the hundreds of thousands.
A civilian popluation that was being mobilized to fight off an invasion. There were few, if any, civilians left.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree. Let's bomb ourselves. We'll start with Baltimore, it's not good for much anyway. I'll get on the job right away.
If I wasn't taking an extended leave of absence from the Internet starting tomorrow, I'd quote from an essay by a couple of noted historians on what the effects of NOT using the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been.
[ January 25, 2002, 08:18: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And what if they'd bombed naval yards, Rob? Regardless, the point is that the U.S. has deliberately attacked civilians -- from the Civil War, to Vietnam.
You want to ignore all that? Fine. Live in your own little world where everything is black and white. The rest of us know better.
Oh, and you know what? Stop pointing out 'debating tactics' and scoffing at them when you ignore just about EVERY point that has been brought up in the thread. You've ignored everything about Vietnam and the Civil War, and you've got no right to talk about 'tactics', since the one you've chosen seems to be "Tell them they're not debating right, ignore most of their points, and declare victory!" Makes you look like more of the hipocrite I think everyone sees you as.
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
I'll butt in here by saying that Nuclear Bombs were designed with Wide Area Destruction in mind. We're talking about whole cities, not just Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
Omega: By your definition, if the U.S. was in a war with Country X and they decided to use a Nuclear Bomb against Seattle, where a Naval base is stationed, they too can state that they were bombing that Naval Base as well as "A civilian popluation that was being mobilized to fight off an invasion. There were few, if any, civilians left." So there.
Jeff is right. Not everything is in black and white. That distinction is what I am fighting in regards to Liberal vs Conservative, etc.
[ January 25, 2002, 08:29: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Considering that the topic of discussion was originally military tribunals, and YOU brought up the total irrelevancies of Vietnam and the Civil War, I'd say that it is YOU who are ignoring the topics and attempting to hijack the thread to promote your agenda.
[ January 25, 2002, 08:38: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
